i actually have some personal concerns with this - would the payout go to the releaser, or the artist? if it goes to the releaser, you get into some tricky territory where taking commissions as an artist for this kind of thing becomes massively unappealing, as there's a possibility the person commissioning you ends up making more than they initially spent on the commission, for a popular enough item.

if it ends up going to the artist only, that's probably the better solution all around, but it would then likely necessitate that you can't really commission people off-site for CWs, no?

i do fear that will singlehandedly destroy the commission market, which might have an opposite effect to what you're hoping it achieves. :( i don't have all the details of how this works, or what the payout would end up looking like (if it's very small, probably not - but if it's anything substantial, it will likely be an issue in my opinion!) but it may not meet your expectations or goals outlined in the first post.

Sure, but if the goal is to make it easier to get into CWs, paying people (any amount) who do it seems like a good step in that direction.

Could you walk through why you think it'd destroy the commission market, instead of whoever gets the revenue from the item sharing it?

revenue sharing for real money is something that places a lot of trust in the person that's commissioning you, and it requires upkeep and a lot more communication than would otherwise be in place for standard commission practices. and if the person commissioning you is a little bit.. not entirely honest, or something happens between the commissioner and artist, suddenly the artist is out that money that was agreed upon and since that's more a personal deal, i have a feeling it wouldn't be something Subeta would want to be regulating between third parties. it just opens up doors for scamming.

on top of the obvious problems, less obvious ones include the fact that it's not possible for normal users to see how many batches have been released or how many items have been sold from a CW shop, making it particularly easy to lie about how much someone has actually made, or owes, or should be sharing.

basically, it's a really big trust to put in someone that you really shouldn't have to as an artist, because there will be no legally binding contract saying that they have to pay you anything after the initial commission. it really can turn into a mess. ;_;

I don't fully understand how this would work, but at it's core, the idea of profits being shared with content creators is appealing. I have some concerns about how it might impact a community that can already be very quick to jump on each other over the smallest things but I suppose if Subeta starts to really hurt financially, then there won't be a community anymore regardless.

Personally speaking, I've always liked the idea of drawing and submitting items but never liked the idea of commissions, so a monetary incentive sounds pretty great. It may also help encourage users to make fewer items "private", which is a trend many have found off-putting and I think has caused a few to give up on the idea of CWs or afraid to become invested in them in the first place.

On a semi-related note, while I support Subeta trying to attract more users, the site is notorious for being very unsteady while you guys are pushing fixes and staff may want to consider more instances of scheduled downtime. New players will never want to stick around if they're constantly being caught off-guard by lag and errors, which makes big changes designed to entice them all very pointless. I know it can be hard to predict sometimes but even just a little announcement banner saying that the wardrobe/etc might be particularly unsteady for the next few hours would be an improvement.

While I do like this idea I wish there was a way to split it with the artist from the get go because it is their art.

My BIG concern would be if this comes in a monetary pay back depending on how much you would earn, would this be considered a taxable income? And if so would it be ONLY American users who can get this?

Because if this is taxable I could see this causing many issues for people outside the states or people that have to claim it on taxes in any way.

Yes, it would be 1099 income which means we would have to report it if a single user brought in over $1,000 otherwise it's unreported and would be for US players only (to start with, I believe that stripe has support for some other countries). Obviously this would complicate our taxes (which are already very complicated) but I think would be worth it to give back to the people who are helping us make that revenue.

That makes the assumption that we know when these things will happen -- we don't. You'll see larger games like WoW go offline but they have a checklist of things that happen during that time (cycle all servers, push client and server updates, etc) which are easy to anticipate. For us our lag/breakage is a lot less likely to be things that we see before hand.

well I would PERSONALLY hope I never crossed that amount because taxes would be complicated having to claim that lol but I'm just checking I understand here:

If its unreported (under $1000) this could go to users in any country? or if its OVER $1000 it could go to anyone? Just a little confused if this entire thing is American only because if it is than I guess it really doesn't make a difference to me anyway.

This is a really interesting idea, and definitely something to consider... but may I throw another suggestion your way first that may also help the problem you're referencing?

There is a rule in the art market currently that states ALL digital art has to have a CSC slot. This includes Custom Wearable work. As a result of this, there are a lot of different ways I've seen people encourage users to use the USD option sometimes to the point where it's close to impossible to actually use the CSC option. This can be difficult or hard to obtain items + csc for that slot, or even higher priced csc options over the USD ones, etc.

My suggestion is to remove this rule entirely. This rule is old, very old. And it implies that physical art is more valuable than digital art. It also implies that digital art doesn't have RL costs, which also isn't true (tablet / computer upkeep / program updates / internet access / etc are all things that cost RL money for people to continue to produce digital art).

This is a real unpopular opinion I've got, I'm sure, but I don't think artists on Subeta (CW or otherwise) should be forced to give Subeta part of their profits. Not only that, but I can't even count the number of times I see artists who show up to Subeta and then leave immediately when they find out this rule. Offering a CSC slot should be up to the artist. I am fortunate enough right now to be able to offer that option, I really am, but not every artist is or can afford to spend hours of time working for a virtual currency, and that's why we're seeing so many work around methods to discourage people spending their csc on commissions / recolors / etc as well as so many new artists leaving the community before they even get started. It's hard to encourage people to stay when they have the weight of loss of income on their shoulders.

--

That said, regarding the current suggestion you've actually brought up, would it be possible for a box to be checked when an item was submitted that opts someone in / out of this system suggested? One that has to be verified by the artist (if they're onsite. Maybe it cannot be used if they're not onsite and can verify it?)

Something like Person A submits the item with Person B listed as the artist. They check a box enabling them to opt into the USD program. Person B (artist) gets an alert stating "Person A has opted into this program, do they have your permission?" and then person B either accepts or declines? (If they decline, Person A receives an event that say something like "The artist for your item " name here " has not given permission for you to opt into the USD program, please speak with your artist, or resubmit your item while opting out." ??

Or possibly the option to 50/50 if you're not the artist? So similar to before, Person A is submitting art by Person B, they opt into the USD program and what ever profit is made goes 50/50 to the releaser and the artist, all behind the scenes so that say if Person A leaves the site but the item continues to sell, they're under no obligation to pop back on just to pay the artist time and time again. Instead, Person B can go into their 'USD panel' or whatever and see the profits they've made from that item / cash out when need be without any user interaction.

(throwing some pings because this is very interesting and needs lots of discussion, I know Celestial isn't active in the CW commissions aspect of the site but this may be something she wants to weigh in on for the future.)

So I don't really have a dog in this race, as it's been a very long time since I've submitted any CWs but judging what I've found regarding this topic I definitely will pull the items I have submitted from my shop if I can't opt out.

For those in the US, you may want to look into the following couple of websites regarding what is taxable and what isn't; I don't believe $1k is the benchmark while doing income taxes, at best I can find one remark on HR Block saying $400 but on the IRS site it sounds like any income made would be considered a "side job/self-employement" and would need to be listed on your income taxes.

Here's the few links I've found:

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-is-taxable-income/L8lh6lfkJ

https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/income/other-income/sources-of-income/

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p525

I think it wouldn't matter much who already make an income off of doing artwork, but as someone with a job + arting as a hobby I really don't feel like adding another taxable income on top of everything else. Just something that should probably be looked into for those who may or may not be effected.

So my biggest concern is for those of us who are NOT artists, just commissioners who release. Either we get shoved out of the CW market entirely, or we end up having to pay MORE money than we already are. I already have to pay twice (once to the artist, another time to buy csc just to submit it, especially if I want it to be a special private item) just to get the item I want onsite. I'm not rich, but I do enjoy splurging every once in a while to get a CW item I want onsite. If this becomes a thing (while I think its great to a point -- rewarding the artists who do contribute to Subeta's income revenue) I'm afraid the little people like me who aren't artistic will get shoved out because of it either costing more or being shoved out cuz why would an artist accept commissions when they can make more money by putting it onsite themselves? And that's not to include what potential pitfalls there could be for what's taxable income and what's not with this.

So, as someone who commissions literally all my items and releases quite a bit, I definitely feel the need to put in my two cents.

Firstly, while I think making money back from the site is great, I don't like the fact that it might potentially shove us off. This is my hobby, this is something I spend most of my time doing. If I can't' do that on the site, I'm simply not going to continue playing. I know it says to take things with a grain of salt, but even considering being taken out of the equation is insulting almost. I've spent a lot of time and money on getting items that I want, and I'd ideally like to continue to do so.

Also, what would this mean for items already onsite and submitted by releasers? Assuming we get cut out of the equation entirely, would we no longer be able to submit recolors of items, or would artists have to do that?

Another problem I have is the entire idea of a payout. While I don't think it would be entirely bad for artists, I'm simply not interested in making money off of the items that I submit. If I have to claim that on my taxes, I'm not commissioning things and I'm not putting them onsite. Subeta and CWs are a hobby, not a way to make money. I don't come on here thinking, YES, I want to make some major dough with pixels. I submit them because I like them and want them and hope that other people do as well. Now, if we offered CSC, I'm not going to object to that. I think making more ways to get onsite currency readily available to people isn't a bad idea. Especially considering CWs can be quite expensive...

I completely understand that we want more people to join the site, but I have a feeling that doing something like this will either destroy the market or oversaturate it, which would be just as bad. If people can make money off of something, they tend to exploit it in any way possible... :/ I just don't see this as being beneficial for most people in the long-run.

I feel like making CWs more affordable overall is a better idea than offering a payout. 7$ (assuming 100 CSC = 1$) is a lot to be able to slot on one pixel wig. I'm fine doing it regardless, because like I said, this is my hobby and not something that I mind throwing money at, but if it were made more affordable, it might appeal to more people. Just something to think about.

- Most of you release, so I'm not sure if you want to weigh in on this?

I agree with 's final statement there. I'd rather be rewarded with cheaper prices than receive an additional payout from subeta itself. I would submit MORE items to the site, ESPECIALLY RECOLORS if the prices were cheaper. I've never understood the need for a basic recolor to cost the same as the first copy that goes on the site.

An additional idea I was spitballing with a friend is-- if staff wants to help the artists in the cw market-- why not create a "Staff Funded CW shop" where you purchase a design from an artist / sponsor them for a month to add a few special items that go into a shop for just non-staff artists? Maybe depending on the funds for the month you buy a few items from one artist, feature them on the main page, and sell the special CWs for a discounted price to encourage people to venture off to the CW market? (Said by someone who greatly misses the old CW contests but understands the drama they caused.)

So I'm not entirely sure how this would work out and so I'm quite confused but I wanted to also share my opinion (of what I think you're trying to get at).

Personally, I don't really commission CWs for making a profit (I usually commission them because I like the overlays/wearables and wanna get them on site for use). But also as someone who doesn't have artistic skills whatsoever, I feel like it would be wrong for me (releaser) to profit off of someone else's art. I have no problems making CSC back from it because it's a site currency that just goes into further fueling my site addictions purchases, but when it comes to making a monetary profit off of someone else's work, even if it's a design I paid for, idk something about that just feels wrong? And I would assume an artist may feel the reverse of that, where someone else profiting off their work and won't like it. And thus the artist might just cut out the middle man and release stuff themselves or decide to increase commission prices to account for those profits which might make it harder for new users to get in the market, especially if those users can't afford to commission/release CWs at the current market.

Either way, as someone who has spent quite a sum on CWs, like has stated, this is more of a hobby for me, I don't do this to make money off of it and any "profit" I make in CSC just goes back into more releasing and more buying for myself.

I also second what mentioned, that I'd gladly take a CW submission price reduction over getting payout any day. Believe it or not, I like it when I can price my CWs lower and more people can have access to them, but I also like making back some CSC with my releases to off-set commission prices and to help submit more things. Plus, I think being able to have cheaper submission costs will make it a lot easier to get less popular designs on site because they'll be more affordable to more people and then I may actually be able to find the 3-5 people needed to get through one batch and then have the design on site.

on paper this is cool, and I like it. in reality, i really, really don't like this. it feels complicated when there are easier solutions present, and as an international user i don't imagine i'd be getting the same payout as US users. which is a bummer, especially since in this scenario artists are probably going to be raising their commission prices to compensate (in theory, anyway).

i'd much rather decrease CW cost overall, give the money back to us right up front in that way, than get a little kickback every month. if the idea is to generate more people using the CW system, i think that in itself is more likely to make new users more widely access CWs, since the complaint is usually the price point. $7 for a CW wig vs. $2 for a cash shop one, for example, stuff like that.

Making CSC off my art is one thing but if someone is hypothetically making actual money by selling something I sold them I’d find that distasteful to say the very least.

I already find it really inconsiderate that artists even have to offer a CSC slot for CWs. There is at least one person who is always takes full advantage of those mandatory CSC comms because it’s actually more profitable for them than the artist. How is that fair?

I don’t want to insult releases, I mean I release things too, but if I’m commissioning an artist I feel that they should be fairly compensated for their work and not be in a position where the site and/or customer is ripping them off.

I can’t see how this would improve the CW market. I’d lose interest in this hobby real fast if half the people who make CWs enjoyable are left out.

Lowering the cost of submitting CWs would certainly be more effective imo in terms of $ for the site and increased participation in CWs.

thank you for the ping & I agree with the points you made!

I don't have much to add but as a person who cannot art at all and releases things via commissions, I def am very, very, veryyyyy concerned about this idea. :(

hard pass